Java developers are up in arms because Leopard doesn’t include Java.

Is anyone surprised? Seriously?

For all the good qualities that Apple and the Mac have to offer, Steve Jobs is still missing out on an essential part of a strategy meant to get mindshare: developers.

Sure, we are all still laughing at Steve Ballmer chanting “Developers, developers, developers” on that fatal day where he made a fool of himself in front of hundreds of thousands of viewers. But there is a much bigger picture here: Microsoft has it right. They know that if you want to make your platform a success, you need to make the developers not just happy: they have to enjoy working on your platform. It has to feel comfortable and empowering at the same time. It needs to look good and to make it easy to create a “Hello world” application just as much as presenting complex blends of HTML, CSS and Javascript while talking to a database back-end.

By continuing to spurn Java developers and focusing on obscure API’s and languages that are known by less than 5% (more like 1% I’d say, but let’s be nice) of developers, Apple is guaranteeing that the number of programs that run on Mac OS will always be dwarfed by those running on Windows.

It’s not about percentage, it’s about sheer numbers. No matter the platform or the operating system, you can be sure that 95% of the software running on it is average, 5% is terrible and 5% is very good. When you apply these percentages to millions like they do on Windows, they start to matter. On Mac OS, they yield ridiculous results.

There is no question that Apple’s market share has been steadily growing for several years now, but not only is the number of users and developers in the entire world growing as well, Apple’s mindshare is growing in a much smaller pond which is bound to plateau very soon, because the choices that Steve Jobs made for his platform are restricting it to a very small minority of uber geeks with an attitude problem.

Now, I’m not saying that Java will save Apple.

What is needed in Cupertino is a radical change in attitude. Dropping the elitist behavior is a mandatory path to success for Apple, and listening to hordes of developers banging at your door is a good first step. Apple doesn’t need to implement Java, but they could show a little bit more willingness to work with whoever is interested in helping take their platform to the next level. Dumping Objective C is probably not an option, but making other languages first-class citizens on a top-notch IDE would undoubtedly go to great lengths toward making this goal a reality (ask Microsoft how Visual Basic and Visual Studio worked out for them). I’d start with C++, maybe C and even some sort of Basic. Hell, just swallow your pride and create a Visual Basic clone for Mac OS.

It’s no secret that most people who try a Mac for the first time usually end up liking the experience. It looks good, it feels good, it has a reasonable UI (still lagging behind Vista in a few areas, but these are of no consequence to my point). A lot of newcomers to the Mac OS world want to be able to write applications for it. Is it surprising that as soon as they find out they need to write in Objective C to get any result, they just bail?

Come on, Apple: start listening to developers, or suffer the consequences of becoming a Firefox in an Internet Explorer world.

I went to see Genesis on stage at the HP Pavillion in San Jose last night.

It felt good to see the boys on stage again after such a long time. Admittedly, they haven’t released any album since “I can’t dance” (and they obviously didn’t play any “Calling all stations” songs last night), but watching them on stage is always a pleasure, and they didn’t disappoint last night.

Tony Banks was his usual impassible (I’m not sure he even looked up from his keyboards once), and Rutherford/Thompson/Stuermer seemed to enjoy themselves quite a bit. As for Phil Collins, despite a few more wrinkles and a few extra pounds, his energy on stage and incomparable showmanship are as great as ever (and he looks downright scary with his sardonic smile during “Mama”). He played with the audience quite a bit and we repaid him in kind.

The set list was their usual mix of old and new songs, and while they did use some of their standard entertaining stunts (like playing the Domino effect with the crowd or the little story introducing “Home by the Sea”), Phil did come up with a few new tricks (which I won’t disclose) that got the entire audience to stand up and laugh with him. They also managed to add a few new orchestrations and medley mixes, starting with the very opening, which was an interesting blend of “Behind the Lines” merging seamlessly into “Duke’s End” (albeit without Duke’s vocals at the end, which I missed). A great way to start the show.

Here are some of the songs they played last night in no particular order: The Cage, Follow you follow me (uncommon), Domino, Invisible Touch, Land of Confusion, Hold on my heart (no “Fading lights” unfortunately), the old song medley (I know what I like, Firth of Fifth, some Slipperman and Lamb excerpts), etc…

The encore started with the standard “I can’t dance” (this song still makes we wince, for some reason. Maybe it’s the music or the awkward dancing which they never bothered rehearsing… come on guys, we don’t expect you to break in West Side Story style synchronized dancing at the first riffs, but is it too much to ask to rehearse three-four minutes worth of decent steps?). The final song of the concert was… The Carpet Crawlers! Now that was a shock, and quite a treat for all the oldies like myself in the audience.

Another point worth mentioning is that they introduced Los Endos with the usual drum battle between Thompson and Collins, except that they mixed it up a bit. Instead of both starting sitting behind their drumkit, they started drumming on some sort of large cushion seat, face to face (hard to tell if it’s really a seat or an elaborate drum instrument). They displayed their usual mastery, exchanging rhymes and breaks and banging their sticks in sync, and after a few minutes of that regime, progressively transitioned to their respective drumkits where the mounting introduction to Los Endos could progress to its apex. I’ve seen their act dozens of times, but this one entertained more than any other, and Thompson and Collins definitely show an unparalleled amount of chemistry in these exercises.

Disappointment of the show: Daryl Stuermer’s guitar solo on Firth of Fifth. I’m not one to say that I miss Steve Hackett since he left the band so long ago, but for some reason, I really didn’t like the way Daryl played this piece last night. Maybe it was his style or his personal touches to this fantastic piece of music, but I was cringing throughout the entire section (admittedly, I started playing the guitar myself a few months ago, which is probably why I feel qualified to be nasty on Daryl ).

Highlight of the show: closing off the concert on “The Carpet Crawlers”.

In conclusion, a fantastic performance which makes me hope the boys will get back to cranking out new music for us soon.

Ever since I finished reading Joe Armstrong’s “Programming Erlang”, several details have been nagging me but I haven’t been able to put my finger on them… until now.

First of all, an erratum: I misinterpreted the wikipedia page when I said that Erlang was created in 1998. Erlang was open sourced in 1998, but it’s actually much more ancient than that. In some way, this explains why the language and tools feel so old, but I also learned something else that sheds another interesting light on why the language is completely devoid of any OO feature.

As it turns out, Joe Armstrong, the author of the book, is actually one of the main designers, if not the creator, of Erlang. He worked at Ericsson back then and created the language to address the fault-tolerance aspects of the products that Ericsson was trying to create. After doing some research in this area, I came across an article titled Why OO sucks written by… Joe Armstrong himself.

I found the article quite emotional and very light in substance, and this text would probably be inconsequential if it didn’t explain in great parts why Erlang doesn’t support any OO feature. When somebody creates a language after writing a “sucks” article, you know the yet-to-be-born language is already starting at a disadvantage because its creator is obviously not going to follow a “take what’s best in all languages” approach while designing his new language. And unfortunately, Erlang fell right into this trap. Which makes me very sad, because as I said in my previous post, I quite enjoyed the other aspect of the language and the decent blend of unification and functional programming that it offers. Maybe if some OO had been thrown in Erlang from the start, we would indeed be facing a language that has the potential to become meaningful. As it stands, I still believe that Erlang is a non-starter for this reason, and a bunch of others that I’ll get to in the following paragraphs.

Scalability

Let’s now turn our attention to Erlang’s claim to fame: that it produces infinitely scalable and fault-reliant programs more easily than other languages.

I have always had problems with this claim, and even after reading Armstrong’s book, my skepticism has not abated. I can definitely see that the syntax of the language makes it easier to write message-based components which, I agree, are probably easier to scale than locking intensive languages such as Java, but syntax itself is not enough. Just because you write a program in Erlang doesn’t mean your code will scale better on multiple processors than if you had written it in Java.

Armstrong doesn’t overlook this point, and he points out that you also need to change the way you think. He gives a few examples in the book (such as an implementation of Map Reduce) and he clearly shows that the initial approach needs to be completely reimplemented before it can be distributed to multiple processes.

Now, if we have to think in terms of distribution from the very beginning of our design phase, Erlang’s edge fades considerably. It seems pretty easy to me to design similar programs with Java using messaging API’s, and with very little additional effort. Message passing might end up being more expensive than Erlang, which has been optimized to make this as lightweight as possible, but without any credible figures, I am skeptical that an Erlang program will come ahead in the long run.

Notwithstanding the fact that Erlang itself, the language and the virtual machine, already runs orders of magnitude slower than Java (and even than Ruby), as Tim Bray’s latest forays in the domain have shown so far (quote from Tim’s series of articles: “How does it run? Well, like dogshit, more or less.”). Interestingly, Tim has received the assistance of a few distinguished Erlang experts to help him speed up his program (which is basically a simple log parsing routine) but the results are still running an order of magnitude slower than Ruby, which is telling since Ruby is already considered one of the slowest dynamic languages today.

The myth of lock-free programming

I am also beginning to question a few claims that are often tossed around when discussing about Erlang, such as the fact that since Erlang doesn’t have any variable nor side effect, it is contention free, and therefore doesn’t suffer from lock issues that traditional languages have.

First of all, contention exists as soon as you use the network, the file system, a database or even ETS and DETS (Erlang’s version of databases). But more importantly, there is one crucial bottleneck that’s never even mentioned in the entire book: the message inbox.

The only way a process can modify the state of or talk to another process is by sending a message to that process. Regardless of how lightweight the implementation of this message passing is, there has to be a lock on all these inboxes to guarantee that when dozens of processes send messages to your own process, these messages are delivered and treated in the order they are received from.

In effect, Erlang seems to be moving locks scattered in various places throughout your code (e.g. synchronized blocks in Java) into one single bottleneck. No matter how efficient this bottleneck is, I’m having a hard time imagining that this approach scales as miraculously as Erlang advocates claim. At least, Java gives me complete control on the coarseness of the locks that I use, and also absolute freedom on where I want to place these locks. If an object can be accessed by only two processes, only these two processes will compete for this lock. In Erlang, these two processes will have to pass messages to the inbox of my process, thereby competing with *all* the processes of my application. And since Erlang programmers want you to create as many processes as you possibly can, this can represent a lot of contention and wait times.

Five nines

Another Erlang claim to fame is that it makes it easy to create fault-tolerant system. This is usually ascribed to the fact that Erlang processes don’t throw exceptions: they die, and it’s up to a supervisor to detect this crash and act on it (usually by restarting that process). Again, I find the evidence that this approach is more robust than traditional ones hard to believe. No matter how much Erlang supports you from a syntactic standpoint, you still need to implement the supervisors and, in short, to plan for failure. This doesn’t strike me very different from any other languages, regardless of the failure mechanism they support (typically, exceptions).

Conclusion

After spending some time to try to find some back up evidence for these various Erlang claims, I still aven’t been able to find anything meaningful in any of the areas described above.

I know there are Erlang programs in the million of lines of code that have been running flawlessly for years, but there are even more running with mash ups of languages that were not even designed to be that resilient. The truth is that it’s fairly easy these days to achieve this level of reliability with redundant machines (ask the Googles, Yahoos, Facebook and eBays of the world) and also quite possible to achieve extremely high volumes of transactions with API’s built on top of traditional languages (e.g. Coherence). As I said in my previous post, the great lesson in scalability we learned this past decade is that it’s much easier to distribute data than code, and the current crop of modern languages (Java and C#) proves this admirably.

The claims put forth by Erlang advocates are quite provocative, and sometimes borderline outrageous, so I’d love to see some concrete and objective evidence to back these up. Failing that, Erlang will remain the oddity that it always been ever since it was created.